Defending the Bullshit President

It'd be great if publications like the American Enterprise Institute, The Weekly Standard, and the National Review would stop defending George Bush over the spying case. The guy broke the law, and that's that. Cheers to Barron's for stepping up to the plate.

Whether or not someone can write a piece arguing why FISA is outdated, and how "liberals hated FISA" before this is just retarded.

Whether or not "liberals" like, or don't like FISA isn't relevant. It's still the law, and he still broke it. It's becoming more apparent every day the President and his staff not only didn't need to do what they did when it came to spying on Americans, but that they knew it was bogus to begin with. The White House legal staff was pressing for this expanded spy policy long before Bush committed the crimes. If they thought the President had "inherent authority" to do what he did they would never have wasted time concocting a legal strategy to defend it.

Right now an article can be found excoriating FISA in almost any rightwing publication. The rightwing hacks are plastered on your TV. Just ask yourself: What if Clinton did it? Would they be defending him? Puhlease.

Like FISA, don't like FISA, it's irrelevant. To say it's a bad law is fair, but to argue for changing the law as a defense for the President is ridiculous. HE BROKE THE LAW AS IT STANDS. He has no right to break the laws, and then have Congress change them after the fact in order to suit his needs, or to make his crime seem less severe. You want to have a debate about FISA, have that debate. But anyone who argues the law should be changed, and uses that as a defense for the President is admitting he intentionally violated the Constitution. He should therefore be impeached.

I believe impeaching him is not only 100% justified, but would also help the Republican Party. They impeached Clinton over complete bullshit. In order to maintain some credibility they should standup for themselves by impeaching Bush. Prove to the American people that you truly believe in the things you claim.

Congress should defend the laws of this country. They should say, "it's not a partisan thing, but the right thing to do..." They would help a party mired in ethics investigation from Ohio to California to Texas to hit the reset button. They would separate themselves from a dishonest administration at a time when the party is taking shots to the head.

Bush isn't needed for the Republican Party to be succesful. In fact, he's weighing it down tremendously. Identification with Bush is shunned by those running for office these days, and that's proof he's not exactly necessary.

Republicans should cut their losses; defenders of Bush should get some class, and impeachment charges should begin for the benefit of every American. I'm not arguing for impeachment because Republicans did it to Clinton for political reasons. I'm not that retarded. I truly believe this guy should be impeached irrespective of anything else that has happened since 2000. Bush is a dangerous President for a host of reasons, and his cronies are making this world and country less safe. Whatever has been done prior to this case the last 5 years is water under the bridge. I was never yelling for impeachment. But this case is so blatant, so illegal, and so ridiculous that I now believe he must go, or at least had charges brought against him.

A debate about what happened needs to take place, and Congress needs to make this happen immediately. Every member of Congress who's worth his/her own salt should be releasing a statement immediately demanding this issue be brought to light. If Bush can prove himself to Congress, I welcome it. He won't be able to do it. Maybe a sideshow will ensue, I have no idea, but a case should be made, and the result should be impeachment.

I Love It

When "Oil Slumps" to below $58.

Just Say It

On some level I appreciate Governor Jon Corzine's gesture of turning down his $175,000 salary since he's one of the richest men in all of politics. One of his spokespeople said the state treasury needs the money more than he does, and that's true. Former Governor Christie Whitman did the same thing as have other loaded politicians like Michael Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Truth it this money is irrelevant, and has little, or no effect on the treasury in any meaningful way.

So many of these candidates are loaded, and that's that. It has nothing to do with dropping pennies in the treasury, or "doing the right thing." Is it the wrong thing to not take the money? Is a candidate who isn't loaded doing the "wrong thing" by taking a paycheck which by comparison to other high powered jobs is not so great?

The real issue here is simple, and it has nothing to do with taking the paycheck. The issue is not having publicly financed elections. As happy as I was to see Corzine spend his own cash to defeat the morons he ran against, I'd much rather see an equal race from the get go. The best candidates not only never make it to the stage, but probably never run because of the wealth of these others.

These people can turn down their salaries because they don't need them. That's not something making me think, "Wow, what great people," but rather, "Wow, how far removed are these people from everyone else when they can turn down $175,000 a year?"

Merry Christmas!

Now for some Silver Jews:

People

Room Games and Diamond Rains

Black and Brown Blues